Although many supporters of the rideshare industry note the perceived benefits such as a possible decrease in drunk driving and added convenience to riders, the numbers tell a more startling story. Aside from the numerous assaults that occur each year in Ubers and Lyfts, data reveals that these services have also made our roadways less safe.

Rideshare services increase the number of people on the road for several reasons: 1) there are more drivers on the road, and 2) people who would otherwise have taken public transportation, walked, or biked are choosing rideshare services. Data reveals that after the introduction of ridesharing, traffic fatalities steadily increased as our roads become crowded with more vehicles.

Rideshare drivers and passengers are not the only victims. The study also revealed: “In cities that have introduced ridesharing, bike and pedestrian fatalities from accidents involving cars have increased at a similar rate to all driving fatalities.”

The costs of ridesharing may also outweigh the benefits. The increase in fatalities due to ridesharing comes with a cost of $10 billion, and these costs do not include non-fatal accidents.

If you have suffered an injury at the hands of a driver for a rideshare company like Uber or Lyft, TKK will provide you with the representation you need. We will help you seek compensation for an assault, robbery, or any other form of harm that was done to you and your family. Contact our Chicago rideshare injury lawyers at 312-605-8800 to arrange a free consultation today.

Read more]]>no-reply@tkklawfirm.com (Super User)Car AccidentsFri, 14 Feb 2020 21:41:46 +0000Lyft is Hiding a ‘Sexual Predator Crisis’ – More Lawsuitshttps://www.tkklaw.com/chicago-injury-attorneys/lyft-is-hiding-a-sexual-predator-crisis-more-lawsuits
https://www.tkklaw.com/chicago-injury-attorneys/lyft-is-hiding-a-sexual-predator-crisis-more-lawsuitsLyft is facing waves of lawsuits alleging that the ride hailing giant has failed to adequately protect its passengers and has ineffectively responded to reports of sexual assault. On Wednesday, September 4th, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in California state court on behalf of 14 women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted by their Lyft drivers in 2018 and 2019. The ride-hailing giant was more recently hit with five additional lawsuits filed by women who allege that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. These women are not alone – Lyft received nearly 100 complaints of sexual assault against its drivers in California alone between 2014 and 2016.

The suit alleges that Lyft often fails to report these crimes to police, and it has adopted policies to silence victims who report their experiences. “Lyft has made a concerted effort in the media, in litigation and in criminal cases to hide and conceal the true extent of sexual assaults that occur in their vehicles,” the complaint says.

One victim, a 33-year-old mother of five who suffers from blindness, relied on Lyft to get her safely to and from the grocery store. She was raped in her home after her driver carried her grocery bags inside, despite her protests. She reported her assault to Lyft and was asked to share details of the assault with a male representative. She stated, “It felt like I was being assaulted again.” Lyft sent a follow-up email in which the employee merely wrote that he was “so sorry to hear about this awful experience” and could “definitely understand why this made you feel unsafe and uncomfortable.”

Another victim alleges that she was held at gunpoint and gang-raped after her driver took her off the designated route to a separate location. Shockingly, the accused driver was able to change his name and photo within the app and continue to drive for Lyft. "Lyft was put on notice that [the driver] was a dangerous, armed, sexual predator, yet it nonetheless allowed [the driver] to continue driving for Lyft…endangering countless other passengers who take Lyft with the expectation of a safe ride home," the suit alleges.

Other victims also shared their feelings on the inadequacy of Lyft’s responses to their reports. One victim stated, “I just felt so insignificant. That they're not concerned about not only my well-being…but any of their customers’ well-being.” In addition to these impersonal responses, only one of the 14 women in the California lawsuit was told by Lyft that her driver had been removed by the company.

Image vs. Reality

Since its inception in 2012, Lyft has seen immense growth in part because it markets itself as a socially conscious alternative to Uber that is safe for female passengers. However, these ad campaigns are not supported by reality. “Lyft knew from the outset that sexual assault was going to be a problem, especially because they have vulnerable passengers who have been drinking,” said the California plaintiffs’ lead attorney Stephen Estey, an advocate for victims.

Both of the lawsuits allege that Lyft has been reluctant to implement new safety features for its app and conduct adequate background checks for its drivers. In 2018, Uber launched an in-app emergency button that customers can use to quickly call 911. Lyft has only recently introduced a similar feature, but it is presently not available to the entire customer network.

The suits offer simple solutions that Lyft can use to keep passengers safe, “including by recording audio and video inside the cars, banning drivers who turn off the app midtrip, and sending messages to both the driver and the passenger when a ride veers off course.” One California woman says she was raped after a driver held her hostage and drove her around for 5 hours. She asserts that if Lyft had cameras in their cars, it might have prevented the incident altogether.

Lyft has also encountered immense criticism for its failure to cooperate with law enforcement. The company is not a mandatory reporter and is not required to report allegations of misconduct. When law enforcement does get involved, “the cooperation Lyft gives to police is sketchy at best,” according to one of the attorneys that filed the California suit. Lyft requires a valid subpoena, court order, or search warrant before providing any information to police. In the case of the blind 33-year-old mother who was raped in her home, Lyft’s email to her also included a line stating, “Lyft is happy to cooperate with any information police may need…as long as they can provide a subpoena or formal legal order” (emphasis added). Prosecutors declined to prosecute her claim, citing a lack of evidence.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion in Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils, one of the last Neil Gorsuch-less cases before the nation’s highest court. Writing for the majority, the Notorious RBG made it clear that when it comes to states prohibiting insurance companies from claiming the proceeds of personal injury settlements - federal law reigns supreme.

The Nevils case stemmed from a 2006 car accident, in which Jodie Nevils, a former federal employee, was injured. Per Nevil’s employment with the federal government, Nevils was enrolled in and insured under a Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) plan offered by Coventry Health Care of Missouri. Soon after filing suit, Nevils recovered a settlement award against the defendant driver. Nevils v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 418 S. W. 3d 451, 453 (Mo. 2014).

After the settlement, Coventry asserted a lien for $6,592.24 against part of the settlement proceeds to cover the medical bills it had paid. After initially repaying the lien, Nevils discovered that Missouri law did not permit subrogation or reimbursement in this context. Accordingly, Nevils filed a class action against Coventry in Missouri state court, alleging that Coventry had unlawfully obtained reimbursement.

At issue in the class action was whether FEHBA preempted Missouri’s anti-subrogation and anti-reimbursement laws. On one side you had Nevils, whose arguments were premised on Missouri law. On the other you had Coventry, (now part of the Connecticut based healthcare group Aetna), who asserted that FEHBA provisions overruled state law and made subrogation/reimbursement clauses in government employee benefit contracts enforceable. In relevant part, the provision at issue stated that “the terms of any contract under this chapter which relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health insurance or plans.” 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m) (11)

In the end, SCOTUS agreed with Coventry, holding that Missouri had no authority to regulate the subrogation and reimbursement provisions in the contracts. Because the contractual provisions at issue granted the insurance carriers rights to payments in exchange for the benefits they provided, SCOTUS stated that providers clearly fell within the language of the Federal statute preempting State Law.

As an alternative in his brief, Nevils had also argued that any finding by the Supreme Court that §8902(m)(1) covers subrogation and reimbursement clauses would violate the Supremacy Clause by assigning preemptive effect to the terms of a contract. Ginsburg disagreed, stating that “the statute, not a contract, strips state law of its force.” The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. With the newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch still waiting to weigh in on his first case, Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion.

The laws governing insurance subrogation and reimbursement can be complicated. At Tomasik Kotin Kasserman, we have decades of experience dealing with insurance companies, hospital bills, and healthcare plans. In order to ensure our clients receive full compensation, we strive to fully appreciate and understand the ever-changing laws governing our Nation’s insurance providers.

We do not tend to think of fall and winter as prime months for construction to occur, but some building projects do not stop just because the temperatures may dip. This means that Illinois construction workers are at risk year-round of suffering a work-related accident. Just recently a construction worker in Chicago was killed instantly when something under pressure hit the worker in the face. Other common causes of workplace injuries and deaths include falling from heights, being crushed by machinery or heavy loads, and carelessness when working around power tools.

Workers’ compensation laws in Illinois provide injured workers (and the surviving family members of deceased workers) who are injured on the job an avenue through which they can recover monetary compensation for their injuries. But this is not the only avenue available to them.

When a Third Party is to Blame

Workers’ compensation laws present injured workers with a tradeoff: workplace injuries are compensated, usually without any consideration of whether the worker or the employer (or both) acted carelessly. On the other hand, the worker is unable to pursue a separate lawsuit against the employer for additional damages unless the employer acted with some intent. Injured workers who only pursue compensation through the workers’ compensation scheme may not be fully compensated for all of their losses and expenses.

But workers’ compensation laws do not protect a negligent third party who causes or contributes to a worker’s injuries. Suppose that the worker described above was killed because a pipe manufactured by a certain company failed when under pressure, contributing to the fatal injury. Unless the worker was an employee of the pipe’s manufacturer, the manufacturer would be considered a third party in this fatal injury incident. Illinois’ workers’ compensation laws would allow a representative of the deceased worker to file a lawsuit against the pipe’s manufacturer and recover damages that may exceed the workers’ compensation benefit. The same is true in the case of an injured worker: where a third party’s carelessness played a role in causing the injury, the injured worker can pursue a lawsuit against the negligent third party.

Must I Bring a Lawsuit Against a Negligent Third Party?

In some cases your employer’s workers’ compensation insurer may encourage you to file a third party lawsuit. They do this so that they may be able to recover all or a portion of the money they paid to you under the workers’ compensation insurance contract they have with your employer. Any additional compensation recovered above and beyond what you received through your worker’s compensation claim would be awarded to you.

The best course of action following a workplace accident is to contact the skilled Illinois workplace injury attorneys at Tomasik Kotin Kasserman LLC. We can investigate the facts of your workplace injury and determine if a third party may be liable for your injuries. If so, we will use our experience and knowledge to aggressively pursue the compensation you need from all at-fault third parties. Contact us at (312) 605-8800 to learn more about how our representation can make a significant difference in your personal injury case.

Many online articles focus on the substance of the law: identifying the elements of a particular cause of action or describing how a certain legal defense operates. As important as this information is, there is a factor more basic and fundamental to every lawsuit that can have a profound impact on your lawsuit’s chance of success: the place where you choose to file your lawsuit. In other words, the specific court you choose to hear your personal injury lawsuit (called the “venue”) can have as significant of an impact on your lawsuit’s chances for success as can choosing the right witnesses and making sure you have sufficient evidence to prove the claims of your lawsuit.

What is Venue?

“Venue” describes what court or courts would be most appropriate to hear a particular lawsuit. Although venue is a concept closely related to jurisdiction and the two are often discussed in conjunction with one another, venue is different from jurisdiction (which discusses what court has the power to hear a particular case). It is not uncommon for multiple courts to have venue as a court may be considered an appropriate place to hear a particular dispute if:

The plaintiff and/or the defendant live in the area of the court (i.e., in a particular county);

It is the location of the accident or dispute; or

The specific court has some connection to the accident or dispute.

How Venue Can Affect Your Lawsuit

A recent news story reported that Madison County, Illinois and the state of Missouri are considered “judicial hellholes” according to a Harris Poll survey. This reflects the opinions of some who believe one party or the other to a lawsuit might not get treated fairly or equally by the courts of that jurisdiction. Choosing a venue that is not advantageous to you can mean:

Courts may be more inclined to rule against you in certain pretrial motions; and

Jurors in that area may have certain predispositions toward your particular type of lawsuit.

How To Choose the Right Venue for Your Lawsuit

Choosing the correct venue in which to file your lawsuit takes some research and insight. After determining the choices of venue that are available, a party can then examine specific information from each venue such as: the number of cases similar to the party’s that the venue has heard (and the outcomes of these cases) and the demographics of the area.

Someone with little or no experience should not choose the venue. The skilled Chicago personal injury attorneys at Tomasik Kotin Kasserman, LLC have helped numerous clients throughout Illinois bring successful personal injury actions against those whose negligence has caused injury. We are committed to doing everything possible to increase your case’s chances for success – including choosing the most appropriate venue for your case. Contact us today at (312) 605-8800 and have one of our skilled attorneys review your case.